Friday, May 22, 2009
Fun with Cognitive Dissonance
I've mentioned before that I don't live or work in California, and right now, I'm feeling pretty good about that. The state budget there has tipped from 'tragedy' to 'farce,' with devastating consequences for public higher ed. From what I can tell as a non-native, it looks like a pair of structural flaws in state government -- two-thirds majorities needed for budgets, and a non-system of government-by-referendum -- have collided with the Great Recession to force a crisis. Since cc funding there doesn't apparently include local tax support, and the colleges themselves can't raise tuition individually, the only path left open to them is to reduce capacity to what the voters are apparently willing to pay for.
Yet at the exact same time, there's a crying need -- and a political push -- for an educated workforce, and cc's are often the lowest-cost and most accessible avenues to create that.
I see this in my own state. We don't export oil, and the old manufacturing base isn't coming back. If there's going to be a sustainable middle class in the future, it will have to have skills. But the very places adults can go to get those skills are taking nasty cuts.
The disjuncture between national policy and state control leads to some very weird outcomes on the ground. In many states, 'stimulus' funding is being consumed almost entirely by existing deficits, since states aren't allowed to run deficits. (Some do, but they aren't supposed to.) When the Feds are pushing the accelerator while the states are slamming on the brakes, it shouldn't be surprising that we're experiencing some jarring fits and starts. There's a really basic structural flaw here, and California just happens to be highlighting it.
Why don't we have a national system for higher ed?
In a way, local or state reluctance to invest in higher ed makes a certain degree of sense. Young, newly-educated people have a way of leaving. At the national level, that's a good thing; we want the talent to go where the opportunities are. But locally, explaining to the folks who aren't going anywhere why they should subsidize other people getting the hell out of Dodge can be a tough sell. ("Let's face it -- this place is a real shithole!" You don't hear too many campaign speeches saying that.) Why, say, Buffalo should prepare its best and brightest to get out of Buffalo is a real question.
But the "we don't capture the gains" objection largely fades away at the Federal level. Most of the new grads who leave the state of their alma mater -- itself a minority -- don't leave the country. On a national level, we do capture the gains.
In a way, we're backing into a Federal system. As the percentage of public higher ed budgets covered by state support has decreased, most of the costs have shifted to students. Since so much of student financial aid is Federal, we're effectively replacing state money with Federal. But we're doing it in a context in which states set the ground rules. A Keynesian burst at the Federal level gets neutered on the ground by state-level deficit hawks. (I don't know if it's possible to neuter a burst, or if hawks know how to neuter anything, but bear with me.) Nationalizing the system would allow the rules to match the emerging logic of the system. And it wouldn't be 'socializing,' since these are public institutions already. It would just relocate them to a level of government that can actually handle them.
So, wise and worldly readers, what do you think? Should we move public higher ed to a national system?
Personally, I've lost faith in both of the major political parties to manage anything more than a scandal.
And *then* where will people go for their higher ed needs, if the US system becomes just as dysfunctional, elitist, and rationed as everyone else?
China is ramping up higher ed I hear . . .
Except in Illinois, the only state in the Union where "Springfield" is a dirtier word than "Washington" ...
At least the feds give us some return on their monetary waste. Our state government (historically) just steals it and funnels it into graft and fraud. :P
It is an unhappy truth that young folks are fleeing the Rust Belt, but the answer is to figure out how to get more good jobs there, as opposed to coordinating some nationwide education policy.
A reasonable compromise would be a statewide CC system, so at least Buffalo would get similar funding to New Paltz, despite the fact that nobody wants to live in Buffalo.
I am delighting in the idea of us having to avoid centralized planning and socialistic tendencies, or else the Chinese Communist Party will do better than us.
Anyway, my concern with national education is national control over that education. Will our academic freedoms be limited? Will the government try to standardize higher education the way they have so poorly for secondary and elem edu? Will this lead to no child left behind for college? I'm just concerned. NPR did a piece (talk of the nation, back in April??) about standardization of higher ed, so your degree from Buffalo would be the same (courses, material, etc) as your degree from say Seattle. Any thoughts on this?
In London they just erected a statue of Ronald Reagan . . .
(oh ok for the easily confused; China has been implementing a buttload of "market based reforms" recently; they call it "Communism with a Human Face." The head honchos realized that they needed a certain amount of economic liberty [capitalism] in order to pay for all the wonderful Communism they were enjoying. And tehy were getting a little concerned that Communism wasn't able to feed a billion people; they needed Capitalism just to keep the country from going into full blown revolt. Will the communist rulers be able to dance along that razor blade between economic liberty and political repression? Well, they believe they can duplicate the European model of "Just Enough Capitalism to Pay the Bills." only time will tell.)
One could look at this question with case studies. Where did the large state investment in higher ed get California (without question the highest level of investment back when they had no tuition)? It still imported a lot of talent, but much of its bigger industries were home grown.
How about states like Michigan and Ohio? One might say it didn't pay off for them, but maybe they would be worse off without their higher ed system. It's not a surprise that immigrant states, like Florida, are cheapskates - and that might be why California is headed that way. But they get in trouble when businesses realize the schools their kids go to are not very good.
But I can't leave without questioning the premise. There is a massive amount of Federal money put into higher ed. From research dollars (arguably the majority of the budget at a top R1) to Pell grants, most colleges would close their doors if Federal funding (in all of its forms) went to zero.
The propositions don't help but neither does the most prevalent attitude in our citizens - that I should get more from the state and pay fewer taxes every year. Thank you Ronald Regan. We also tend to like to elect movie stars as governor to the general detriment of all.
I work with a particularly starved bit of our state government that is so weak and pathetic it is almost entirely ineffective and yet in its moribund thrashing about it still manages to make my life incredibly difficult. It's almost enough to make me turn Libertarian.
That said the only thing I can imagine that would make things worse here is if we had federal interference. What's happening right now is a perfect example of the adage that the IQ of a group goes down each time you add a member. Cram 40 million of us together and come watch the circus.
What we need is: a 60% rule for the budget and new taxes (rather than 2/3), redistricting, tax reform or at the very least an exemption from prop 13 for commercial property, and a total overhaul of the proposition system. The first two are in the works – on the last two, I’m not holding my breath.
Probably the same sort of person who thinks there's a "liberty" knob (ours goes to 11), and all policy disagreements are between the "pro-liberty" people and the sadists who get off on controlling others for the sake of doing so.
I am not saying this out of concern for my political opponents' futures; I am saying it because I want to win every election forever from now on.
It seems to me dubious that the present system would do a good job of treating higher ed as a national concern--the concern somebody raised about a No-School-Left-Standingization of higher ed seems legitimate--but this issue should be an important part of a broader push for meaningful systemic reform.
And meaningful systemic reform would involve acknowledging that a bunch of reserve domains for the states--an increase in one variety of 'liberty,' if you believe that state governments are *truly* more responsive to their citizens than are national governments (for evidence contrary to that particular belief, one need only drive alongside any one of the thousands of state-regulated waterways befouled by industrial pollution)--actually impede 'liberty' at the federal level. Among about a hundred other (academic) texts on the topic, Robert Dahl's How Democratic Is the American Constitution? makes the point fairly well.
And my point is only that a functional community college system might best be made possible through the pursuit of a stronger federal system. (For those, incidentally, worried that U.S. academic jobs would then be more like those in W. Europe, let's keep in mind that large state institutions often receive less than 20% of their funding from the state; and community college positions are already very much like those in European universities, which are similarly but more centrally [and hence somewhat better and more equitably] funded.)
Please visit our site at: http://www.freedomtoblog.com to submit your blog entry!
1) Permanent Backlinks to your blog
2) Fully SEO optimized for maximum exposure
3) A chance to be published into a top 500 best of blog book"
I don't see any conflict between those views and the concerns Punditus Maximums raises with a false dichotomy. Particularly in these times, the question of WHICH state should pay for higher ed is a valid one. Are you better off getting all of the funding from the Federal Government, where funding per student might not match up with the local cost of living? Are you better off getting it from the State, where the money you get might be controlled by voters hundreds of miles away who want a tax cut? Or are you better off if it comes from a local millage, where a valued local college would get its money from the people who benefit the most from the college? Or are you better off in the hybrid system we use, where overhead expenses often grow just to keep the books straight for each little program that pays for some part of the cost?